From what I gather, Lemoine, who died in 1940, is being misrepresented in the passage quoted in Mongo's post:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In ...te><p><br><br>That's all I know of Lemoine, but it sounds in general like a disagreement among scientists about what mechanism is likely to produce evolution. In that regard I'd point out that one of the great defenders of evolution as fact, Stephen J. Gould, argued against his colleagues, who maintained a gradualist approach to evolution, that the actual mechanism for evolution was something Gould called punctuated equilibrium. Selective quotation from Gould's work could conceivably produce the same "here's a scientist against evolution" kind of conclusion. As others have pointed out, evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact, and there are several different hypotheses that explain the mechanism of evolution just as there are several different hypotheses that explain the mechanism of gravity. Disagreement about mechanism is not disagreement about the fact.<br><br>I have an unfortunate example of the fact of evolution. The daughter of good friends of mine died at age 13 because she had CF and the bacteria that infected her in her final bout of lung infection had evolved into strains so resistant to antibacterial agents that she could not be saved. To deny evolution requires a very strong a set of ideological blinkers.<br><br>edit: thought I'd make the Gould point clearer.<br><br>&#63743; &#63743; &#63743; &#63743;<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by yoyo52 on 01/02/08 12:47 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In the U.S., the Creation Research Society has 600 voting members, all holding advanced science degrees, and all of whom reject Darwinian evolution. The inventor of the MRI, one of the most advanced tools in medicine, Dr Raymond Damadian, is a young-earth creationist. Many more examples could be cited, but I think the point is made.<p><hr></blockquote><p> And your point is that even an advanced degree does not make you immune to stupid? Let me count up all scientists in the US. Done. 600 believe in young earth creationism. 0.00001% of US scientist have spontaneously become stupid. Cool. Neat point. I could have found you 600 stupid advanced degrees and I wouldn't even have to leave Harvard Yard. <br><br>The rest of your dribble about evolution cannot be commented on because it shows an utter lack of knowledge of even the fundamentals of evolution.<br><br>Using Sir John William Dawson to refute evolution is an interesting choice since he died before the start of the twentieth century. He was a contemporary of Darwin and refuted evolution on theological principles. Faith in other words. As a geologist he was OK but he bolluxed biologicals big time. He became famous for the organism eozoon canadense found in Laurentian rocks but has since been found to be only a mineral deposit. He gets an F in fossil identification.<br><br>His son was more remarkable. Even though steeped in a house of theology he also became a prominent scientist who studied with Thomas Huxley and became a scientist who anchored all his work on modern evolutionary theory.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

"No flies on Paul";<br> You DO 'get the joke'! <br><br>While there are doubtless many many true "Men of Science" <br>still working with the National Academy of Sciences, they've<br>become as rare as honest hardworking Whitehouse Staff <br>during this administration. It's become a long known scandal<br>that the National Science Advisors have long had their integrity<br>and credentials sullied, if not dragged through the mud by the<br>appointed bought and sold corporate owned flunkies that lean<br>science in whatever direction Bush (and the World Bank) wish<br>to go at any given time. Whereas these once highly respected<br>academics were once the guardians of the people (much like the<br>The Dept of the Justice) they have become another tool of the<br>Whitehouse with life time appointments, or "Revolving Door <br>Politics" (working alternately for the likes of Exxon/Mobile<br>and Monsanto. They have become WORSE than "useless" they<br>have become dangerous, because people are still counting on <br>them to make unbiased decisions based on science. This is<br>certainly no longer the case.<br><br>It's no t a matter of "GORE-ism" as I've been accused, all one<br>has to do is take the time to research each of the TOP Advisers <br>& their History, other than simply by the Diploma on their wall.<br><br>It would INDEED be funny... if our life weren't in the balance.<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.